Avid Weiner-watchers in the press jumped on a Friday evening report that police in New Castle, Del. were investigating the online communication between Rep. Anthony Weiner (D - N.Y.) and a 17-year-old high school junior.

It seems no sexual messages passed between the two—the young woman's mother had already spoken to the New York Post earlier in the week, telling the paper that Weiner had sent only "two brief messages" to her daughter (brief messages, not briefs messages):

The girl's mother, whose name is being withheld, told The Post Wednesday that Weiner sent nothing obscene — and sent only two brief messages to her daughter about seeing him during an April school trip to the Capitol.

[...]

The mom did say her daughter wrote in one message, "I'm in love with you," but explained it away with, "She's 17."

"None of us will be getting our 15 minutes of fame because of this nonsense," the mom said. "Representative Weiner never tweeted her anything inappropriate . . . That is the answer, honestly."

The New Castle police department told the Post that the teenager "disclosed no information regarding any criminal activity" in the course of their investigation. The cops seem to have been tipped off (maybe by the conservative anti-Weiner Twitter brigade that's been pushing "Weiner likes young girls" since before Weinergate?) to "alleged contact between Congressman Anthony Weiner and an area teen," and followed up yesterday—unfortunately (for Weiner), arriving at the woman's house at the exact moment a Fox News crew was "inside speaking with a family member."

Fox's Jana Winter quickly put up her police investigation exclusive. But the Post—working just a few floors away at 1211 Avenue of the Americas—had already spoken with the Delaware family (on Wednesday) and found nothing that would indicate (sexual) impropriety. If only the Fox crew had checked in with their fellow News Corpsmen! Because when it comes to the Weiner beat, there's no one better at it than New York Post reporters.

Weiner's office, for the record, held from the start that "his communications with [the teenager] were neither explicit nor indecent."